Fatal Workplace Incident: Presumption of Work-Related Cause Remains Firm
April 3rd, 2026
Guillaume ROLAND Ondine JUILLET
In social security law, any event occurring during working hours and at the workplace benefits from a presumption of its work-related nature, which can only be rebutted if the cause is shown to be entirely unrelated to work.
An employee, on assignment during working hours, suffered a cardiac episode while driving his vehicle. His death was pronounced shortly thereafter.
Before the courts, the question was whether the occurrence of the accident during working hours was sufficient to qualify it as a workplace accident, despite the existence of a pre-existing medical condition.
In this case, the employee had significant cardiovascular history, including a prior heart attack. The trial court judges concluded that the death was caused by this pre-existing condition, thereby ruling out the classification as a workplace accident.
In a decision dated January 8, 2026*, the Court of Cassation overturned this analysis.
It firmly reaffirmed the rules governing the presumption of a work-related nature: an accident occurring during working hours and at the workplace is presumed to be of professional nature, unless it is proven to have a cause entirely unrelated to work.
However, in this case, uncertainties remained regarding the exact circumstances of the incident, particularly the possibility of exposure to a toxic gas. In the absence of conclusive proof of a purely personal cause, the presumption could not be set aside.
This decision is consistent with established case law: the mere presence of a pre-existing condition, even if established, is insufficient. The standard of proof required to overturn the presumption is particularly high.
Our recommendation: We might almost think that,soon, employees will need to prove they are in good health in order not to be compensated! On a more serious note, taking these issues into account in advance allows for improved risk control and prevents uncertainty from systematically disadvantaging the employer.
*Cass. 2e civ., 8 janvier 2026, 23-23.161
=> For any advice on employment law or social security law, please contact Guillaume Roland, partner: g.roland@herald-avocats.com